View Single Post
Old 10-11-2016, 10:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: Iffy therapies given thumbs up by the FDA. SCARY! I'm

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
As godfry correctly points out, regulatory agencies ain't exactly the best sources of complete information in a profit-based healthcare system. And indeed, there are plenty of LASIK problem stories out there. Mary Pierce, a former pro tennis player of some renown, reportedly had some serious issues back in the early 2000s.

But, as always, unsubstantiated conspiracy mongering and emotionalistic claptrap amount to exactly jack.
Either they were aware of serious risks and ignored them, or they didn't have enough knowledge about the potential risks. Waxler said how many eyes and lives will be ruined in order to make a living?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Dr. Waxler petitioned the FDA to withdraw pre-market approval for the devices used to perform LASIK procedures and issue a public health advisory. The FDA's response is available here. Perhaps you could explain, in a detailed point-by-point manner, exactly where and how the FDA went wrong in its response.

Also - and I realize this may be a bridge too far - please provide the detailed, point-by-point exposition without citing the websites of any anti-Semitic, moon landing denying Sandy Hook truthers, plzkthx.
Waxler said he gave approval but was not informed of the risks, only the benefits. I'm sure he has guilt for approving a procedure that has caused serious harm to a good portion (20% approximately) of those who were told the complications are temporary.
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.19596 seconds with 11 queries